Paying 9 Months Rent Upfront via Family Loan — Will UC Housing Element Still Be Paid?

bird82

Looking for some clarity on this:

Although we are both employed, we do receive some Universal Credit to help with living costs and housing. However, we may need to move soon and we're struggling to find a private tenancy because most landlords and estate agents refuse tenants whose income is partly from benefits.

I could borrow up to 9 months’ rent upfront from my dad as a private loan and pay him back monthly using my UC housing element.

The tenancy would be in my name, rent paid to an independent landlord, and I would be liable under the agreement. Shelter guidance and the UC Regulations (Reg 26 / Schedule 2) suggest UC doesn’t exclude rent paid in advance, but I want to be sure.

Has anyone successfully done this or discussed it with DWP? Any tips on getting written confirmation that the housing element will continue under this arrangement would be really appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Robbie64

As long as you have a legal liability to pay rent, paying rent to the landlord in advance (whether that is 2 months, 6 months or even 9 months in advance / upfront) won't prevent you from getting a housing element payment each month in your UC.

Newcad

Just to note:

You are aware that in a private rental the UC Housing Element will be capped at the LHA (Local Housing Allowance) rate that applies for the area and for your circumstances.

That will not be the full rent amount. (or rather it is very unlikely to be the full rent amount, unless the rent is very, very, low).
You will need to top-up the difference between LHA and the actual rent amount.
(Or in this case top-up what you pay back to your parent each month).

As you are working then that's probably doable, and if you are private renting currently you'll already know about the LHA, but I thought I'd point it out for anyone else reading who may not know.

subjecttocontract

If you pay 9 months rent in advance that can mean the notice period for termination of the tenancy can change to 9 months.

peteuk

Is it just me...

bird82 said:

we're struggling to find a private tenancy because most landlords and estate agents refuse tenants whose income is partly from benefits.

Youll still be claiming UC so weather you pay one month, six or nine months your income will still be partially made up of benefits.  You say it yourself, your Dad will loan you the money and then you will pay it back to him from the housing aspect of UC. 

This wont change the fact your claiming UC and so when you go to an letting agency/landlord and they look at your income it will show, low income topped up by UC.  Which is the reason why your struggling in the first place to find new accomodation. 

Spoonie_Turtle

peteuk said:

Is it just me...

bird82 said:

we're struggling to find a private tenancy because most landlords and estate agents refuse tenants whose income is partly from benefits.

Youll still be claiming UC so weather you pay one month, six or nine months your income will still be partially made up of benefits.  You say it yourself, your Dad will loan you the money and then you will pay it back to him from the housing aspect of UC. 

This wont change the fact your claiming UC and so when you go to an letting agency/landlord and they look at your income it will show, low income topped up by UC.  Which is the reason why your struggling in the first place to find new accomodation. 

Landlords can sometimes be more amenable if someone can pay the first X number of months' rent upfront.  The less stable they view the income, the more months' rent it takes to appease them.

Doesn't mean it's not still a struggle but it raises the chance of a landlord being willing to say yes.

Newcad

Many landlords are quite happy to take tenants with benefits as long as the rent is paid months in advance.

They seem to discount what may happen once that advance period has ended.

Many landlords are still blinkered about the reality of UC and what it means if they want to continue having an outdated 'no-benefits' stance.

A lot of previous 'no-benefits' renters were getting Tax Credits, which Landlords didn't consider as being benefits. (Neither did the TC claimants).
Now that Tax Credits have been migrated to UC all those former Tax Credits tenants are now seen as benefits claimants. (They always were benefits claimants of course, just from HMRC rather than DWP).

The landlord who still insists on a no-benefits policy is simply restricting their own potential market place.
Many who they would have happily rented to as TC claimants are now untouchable benefits claimants.

It won't happen overnight however -
With 8.0 million people on Universal Credit in July 2025, and rising, the 'no-benefits' landlord is a dying breed.
Most of them will become 'Only working people need apply' landlords, but that's an improvement.

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

Many landlords are quite happy to take tenants with benefits as long as the rent is paid months in advance.

Totally correct, it's what I had to do, I paid 6 months in advance as part of the contact  and know other people who have done the same, without those advance payments the LL wouldn't have rented.
In their wisdom, the Renter's Right Bill takes that option away, meaning those to have only benefits as income will find it much harder if nigh on impossible to get any decent private rental. All that will be left are the dregs that no-one else wants.

Grumpy_chap

Newcad said:

the 'no-benefits' landlord is a dying breed.

As a LL myself, can anyone explain to me in simple, plain, easy to understand, small words why "no benefits" would be a meaningful filter?
It is a mind-set I do not understand - have I missed something obvious and leaving myself exposed to unnecessary risk?

Newcad

As you point out it has never been a meaningful filter, and UC makes it even less so.

But you still get lazy LL's and agents using it as a filter. (Some still even use the archaic 'No DSS').
They just haven't thought things through and are acting on an unconsidered 'class' bias.

I've seen it put on Landlordzone forum as "I can't be bothered sifting through applications from benefit scroungers who have no chance of renting my property"
Which says a lot about the mindset of that particular LL. (Wonder how he's coping with his Tax Credits tenants now being UC 'scroungers'?)

born_again

I thought that the policy " because most landlords and estate agents refuse tenants whose income is partly from benefits." had been banned under the equality law?

Aside from that Genuine question. If anyone paid upfront for X months rental. How would that work in terms of UC Housing Element be paid. As they are not paying anything for the 1st X months?